Category Archives: Politics

Post navigation

We’re still waiting for an alternative proposal here folks. Do you think Osborne is going for the record of talking in the House of Commons for the longest without a single hint of an alternative proposal.

What! Is that it? Where’s the alternatives?

Darling back up. Yes, there is a choice to voters, between a party with policies actually doing something as opposed to well, hmm, a bit of party political point scoring more akin to the debating society and well, erm, nothing. I know it’s hard to find a Tory policy at the best of times but all this reinforces is that while Labour are dealing with the issues on an ever changing basis the Tories are completely lost at sea.

Extra money for debt advice. The CAB could really do with that right now.

From a social perspective, prioritising trying to prevent short-term unemployment becoming long-term is vital. Long-term unemployment is socially cancerous, destroys families and communities. It’s very good to see that being recognised. I do remember the 80′s y’know.

Rejigging the duty on cars. That was a quickie.

Tax credits for families up, thanks, turning into a good day.

With inflation falling, pegging rises in the basic state pension to the highest inflation rate wil make a real difference.

Laying the battleground now with the contrast between doing nothing and helping people through ‘difficult times’. Yes, some of us do remember how the Tories left millions to fend for themselves in the 80′a and 90′s.

So we know the economy isn’t going to grow much for 2 years.

Tax revenue dropping but a need to inject money into the economy for fiscal stimulus through presumably tax cutting.

Ooh, public finances:

Borrowing at 8% of GDP. Tories don’t seem to think investing in public services a good idea, no change there then.

National debt to rise to 57% in 2013-14. Oh well, still not as bad as Belgium.

Underlying the investment in schools and health. Important not to put services at risk, certainly don’t want them as bad as they were 15 years ago.

Tied up with savings through efficiency and capital sales. I wonder if the Tories realise that people in the public sector buy stuff too? A steady and stable public sector is vital to propping up the private sector in these times.

Making it easier to raise credit with a Â£100Billion guarantee. Good stuff.

Why when Darling mentions this being a global problem do the Tories get excited? Do they watch the news? Much as I’m sure they’d like to believe it’s all the fault of the Government, only an idiot would fall for that line.

Darling’s lining them up nicely with the bad news. Low growth, share prices fallen but at least lower interest rates are helping home owners (morgagees) with monthly payments.

Warming up folks. Layout for the afternoon – separate posts for each update (not an amended single post) keep that refresh button busy.

Sky’s on the telly. Kevin Maguire just been up and some geezer from the Daily Mail. Why do I get the feeling Sky are going to have lots of people in stripey suits complaining that they’ll leave the country if they have to pay more tax. I’ve often wonder how many of them would really disappear and if it would really matter that much.

I have the distinct feeling that today may mark a real seismic change in British and possibly even international politics.

It’s been indeed a very long time since any government (we’re working on the rumurs from Sky here so if it doesn’t turn out then it’s their fault) looked like rasing taxes on the top earners in society.

For over a quarter of a century we’ve been fed the line from a dominant neo-liberal agenda that if we lower taxes on the higher earners it encourages them an stimulates entrepreneurship. I’m not exactly sure what a few percentage difference on Â£150,000 a year or more is in terms of stimulus but like the 98% of workers in Britain, I’m not in that group and probably never will be so I can’t say.

We were told that allowing people to amass greater wealth would stimulate a trickle down effect making everyone better off. It was a sham and history will record that it failed miserably. I’m reminded of an old Ben Elton sketch from the 1980′s which summed it up rather nicely. These people with lots of money did go out spending, buying Japanese televisions and German cars. Sartorial and simplistic but not a million miles away from the truth.

I once came across an old Labour Party leaflet from the early 70′s while hunting through some old archives. Th curious thing about it was that the balance of trade featured as one of the main criticisms of the Heath Government. It struck me that I couldn’t remember the last time I’d seen such an economic terms in a leaflet from any party. Perhaps it’s indicative of the levels to which our deficit grew in the 1980′s that it’s just not mentioned anymore because it’s a bit taboo and with a devastated industrial base is never going to look good.

Neo-liberal economics failed. Trickle down principles turned out to be nothing but a sham of an idea to allow the already rich to get richer and perversely be subsidised by the poor.

A lot has been done over the last 11 years to address the deep social and economic problems brought about by such an economic regime but as good as they have been, there’s not been a time when the core principles have been challenged to such an extent.

This could be that time where we see a real shift away from the morally and intellectually bankrupt neo-liberal unfettered capitalism of the right. Away from a position where the system dictates society instead of the other way around.

Hopefully this will be the start of ‘trickle up’ economics. Putting the money in the hands of those who really do spend it in the economy, bringing about economic activity and growth where it is truly needed, not with investment companies and hedge funds but putting ordinary people in jobs providing goods and services that ordinary people need and use.

Here’s hoping then.

Perhaps I should do a spot of live blogging of the pre-budget report? That’s a thought.

Every once in a while someone contacts me to review something so tonight folks, it’s book review time. “The Big Earth Book” by James Bruges, published by Sawday’s and printed by Cambridge University Press.

As it name suggests, it is qute big and I really should have penned this review a good three weeks ago but I’ve been busy undertaking (none shelf stacking) duties.

What’s it all about?

Well it covers a vast array of enviromental related topics, heavy on the issues of climate change and owing to recent events ties in elements of global finance, inequality and pretty much the future of our species.

Given it’s wide remit there are areas that I feel are stronger than others reflecting the author’s specialism but across the board it’s challenging in terms of some of the accepted wisdoms and practices of the way we humans go about things.

For me, the core interest despite my background in economics which kicks in later in the book is the first half around enviromental issues. The challenges of negating human detrimental impact on our environment and unlike it seems the current focus of by many writers and the media being around carbon emissions, it deals with the traditional concerns of environmentalists, that of actual pollution and importantly for me the degradation of soil quality across the world.

For me though it’s all very well reading about what are the problems but I’m interested in solutions and despite my trying to keep up with things and finding novel ways that we can negate our impact on the environment the one that stuck out the most for me was in India a scheme that uses wood to produce heat for cooking while also creating charcoal that can be used the enrich the land for growing crops without the use of agro-chemicals which I’d like to look into further.

So on the environmental side the book is strong and full of really interesting ideas but as it moves into the area of global finance there are some contradictions that seem to creep in. The proposition for a global currency against which all others are trading and key resources like oil can be set against instead of an individual countries currency at present like the dollar are classical Keynesian ideas which I’d have a lot of time for. However later it discusses the use of barter instead of currency where people trade their products and skills directly. Although this can and does in places work on a smaller scale it’s not a sensible means by which to run a global economy so I would have to be critical there.

That said there are some other interesting ideas like the Jak Bank in Sweden that works on the principle of not offering interest on saving. A bizarre concept at first for those used to our general model of banking in the West